QnA Evolution

[Blitz]

I have studied it in school and in free time with books and magazines and on websites. The big bang, Micro and Macro-evolution, chemical evolution etc.
And the other question.
The genealogy thing was Paul talking about the fable that were circulating in the Old Testament the one which now are not recognized a part of the Bible. (From Charles Ryrie study Bible)
Then the next one I sorta got off topic slightly fuming. God created the stars to provide light and heat wouldn't we on Earth freeze if we weren't hit my the suns rays immediately and the Sun is a star?

[John Chrysostom]

That is one interpretation as to what St. Paul means by genealogy, I think you have to dig a bit to get that but fair enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong but do the stars really provide heat? Or even that much light? As for the Sun it takes eight minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth, so big difference between the Sun and other stars.

Christian: As for the AIG articles about radioactive dating, I read the articles and they all admit that radioactive dating even with the very large error rate the process still dates the earth at millions of years old. I really don't see a way around that.

[Blitz]

Yes but what you forgot to mention is that the radioactive dating is highly unstable. If the flood happened burying billions of dead things it would affect the radioactive dating.

[John Chrysostom]

I mentioned the unstable nature, the process admits a very large margin of error when citing a date but even given a margin of error of tens of millions of years the Earth is still over a million years old. AIG doesn't give any scientific data for how exactly the flood would change the margin of error it just says that it might change it and there's no telling by how much. This is poor science to me, they are clearly working from an assumption they never have any intention of changing.

[Blitz]

And so is evolution, let me ask you how was blood tisue found in a T-rexes bone? Or why are race which supposedly are very different only differ .02 percent? Or have there been a single change in animals not mutations? Oh and don't we dirive from chickens which are closer in genes to us? Or maybe why do the time scales of evolution keep changing. Evolution has changed hundreds of times yet the Bible remains the same.

[John Chrysostom]

You say in one breath that evolution doesn't change but then in the next one talk about how it changes all the time, which is it? Also while the Bible hasn't changed in your mind there has never been agreement about your and AIG's interpretation of Genesis in the church, in fact there has always been radical disagreement; this issue is not settled in Christianity.

You obviously have several talking points that you've used a great deal and to be perfectly honest I have no idea how to answer them. So why don't you expand on one point and we can go from there? Blood tissue in T-Rex bones; what does that mean?

[Blitz]

The T-rex supposedly died out more than 60 million years ago and blood cell can last for only 60 million years. Blood tissue was found in a skeleton of a T-rex.

[John Chrysostom]

Well the obvious answer is that T-Rex's were around longer than thought.

Okay what about this .02% ?

[Blitz]

Yes but that changes evolution again. now according to evolution the race of blacks is lower in development than other races. Yet there is only .02 percent difference between the blacks and causcians and other races. The true scientist have dumped the term.

[John Chrysostom]

It changes one aspect of evolution, it does very little to disprove the theory as a whole and has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

If the term isn't used anymore why are you bringing it up?

Okay what's up with these time scales changing?

[Blitz]

Just like the T-rex thing the evolutionist went into their timescales and edited it a little, for human to evolve from apes they wouldn't have had the time. For supposedly it took 60,000,000 years yet according to estimates now it would take more time also conflicting with Carbon 14 readings.

[John Chrysostom]

Okay, seems to me that the scientist are changing their views to match up with new evidence they find. How is that wrong? I mean what we think atoms look like has changed drastically over the years but we don't doubt that there are atoms or that science can speculate on what they look like.

[Blitz]

Yes but the bible never changes it predicted many things before science caught up and it is historically correct by every archaeological find.

[John Chrysostom]

Fair enough but the age of the earth is not one of those things, people can speculate from the genealogies but I still hold that the Apostles wrote against that. Any way as I said before there has never been agreement in the church about this issue so saying the Bible doesn't change is a mute point since interpretations obviously do.

[Blitz]

What do you mean?

[John Chrysostom]

I mean that the young earth view is not the only Biblical view there are a host of interpretations from various Christian denominations for an old earth view and even theistic evolution. I ascribe to an old earth view and remain unconvinced about theistic evolution. You seem to be saying that the Bible clearly states a young earth view and I'm just saying I don't think that interpretation is as clear.

[Christian A.]

Sorry I haven't been on here to answer your questions yet, Ayn.

Then after that the Geanologies give accurate timing.

Yet there has always been disagreements about the time in the genealogies among Christian scholars. And in fact the Apostles wrote cautions about getting caught up in genealogies. Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless." 1st Timothy 1:3-4 "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."

I'm pretty sure I've heard this explained as follows: Jews used to get all caught up in studying genealogies so that they could figure out whose ancestors were more important, which tribe they came from, &etc. Paul didn't want that to be of importance to them anymore, because they had all been made true descendants of Abraham in Christ (Galatians 3).

Christian: As for the AIG articles about radioactive dating, I read the articles and they all admit that radioactive dating even with the very large error rate the process still dates the earth at millions of years old. I really don't see a way around that.

I would answer the same way that conquestor answered. I've heard evidence from both AiG and the Institute for Creation Research that a global flood would have drastically effected the reliability of carbon dating. Unfortunately, I don't know the science behind it, so I can't give you any proof of that.

On a different note, do you believe that dinosaurs and humans were together on the earth at any point?

[John Chrysostom]

I think that's one interpretation but it could also have more than one meaning, I remain unconvinced either way.

To me it seems like they made that claim simply because it fit their preconceived assumption about the age of the earth.

I do believe they were together on the earth together and in fact I was just reading in the Book of Daniel about the story of Bel and the Dragon that gives us an example from Scripture of a dinosaur alive even after the flood.

[Christian A.]

Are there extra chapters in Daniel in your Scriptures? Cause...I've never seen that in my Bible.

But yeah, there are examples of creatures that are more than likely dinosaurs in the Book of Job. There are some references to dragons throughout the Bible.

I only asked the question because if you said that dinosaurs and humans never did co-exist, I knew I could change your mind really fast.

[John Chrysostom]

Yes that is part of the extra chapters in my Scripture. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=DRA